Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Half-Life 2 episodes/archive1

Half-Life 2 episodes

Main page	Articles
*Half-Life 2*	Half-Life 2: Episode One · Half-Life 2: Episode Two · Half-Life 2: Episode Three

Gary King (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's the link for the Half-Life 2: Episode Three peer review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Support - Nice work. This has a large amount of overlap with the orange box topic, which is unprecedented, though not unnatural I feel. So this gets my support - rst20xx (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong oppose~~ for the reason of overlap. I have nothing against the articles, but I would far rather see a featured topic for the Half-Life series as a whole, including Half-Life (video game), Half-Life: Opposing Force, Half-Life: Blue Shift and Half-Life: Decay. Making this a featured/good topic would mean that in the future there would be three featured topics with the articles for Half-Life 2, Episode One and Episode Two, as there's already overlap with The Orange Box featured topic. I strongly recommend a FTC on any Half-Life series articles is just left alone until the articles related to Half-Life 1 and the series article are improved to good article status or higher, so we can have a complete topic detailing the series in its entirety with minimal overlap. -- Sabre (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this. An overall Half-Life series topic isn't ready yet, but when it is, I'm sure what would happen is that this topic would be folded into that one, not that they would both exist. See also Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Characters of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow - rst20xx (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; we can just build up, either with a new nomination or with supplementary ones. Gary King (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if we can transform this into a Half-Life series featured/good topic when the HL1 articles reach good article status, then I lend my support to this. -- Sabre (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice subtopic for the Half life featured topic. Meets all the criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I am not sure about the title. Z gin der 2008-09-14T00:19Z (UTC)
Comment Half-Life 2 is currently at FAR. Pagra shtak 04:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - so close, but Half-Life 2 is now at FAR, so that's no good there. --PresN (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did make GA before getting promoted to FA, so if it was demoted would it just revert to GA and therefore be acceptable here? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would drop to B. Gary King (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would become unassessed, but not GA. Z gin der 2008-09-18T15:28Z (UTC)

Arg. It seems very unfair, but I don't feel this can pass until the FAR is over - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why unassesed? It was passed as a GA, and it did not go through a GAR. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it loses its GA status when it becomes a FA. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe FAs should be a subset of GAs, but I guess this is not the place to discuss it. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~On hold~~ - I guess this nomination should be considered on hold pending the outcome of the Half-Life 2 FTR, and then either promoted or not promoted depending on what that outcome is - rst20xx (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that's fine with me. I'm obviously hoping that the FAR will pass; it currently looks that that's the way it's headed, because there are a few people pitching in to help out. Gary King (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Review is about to close favorably, path is clear to make this a Good Topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FA review has closed with the article being kept as a FA. There shouldn't be any more barriers to this becoming a GT. -- Sabre (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to leave it up for a couple more days so people can check it over for any other objections, but yes, well done with the FAR - rst20xx (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object to the name I believe the "episodes" label is misleading. The main article is not an episode, and the episodes are actually expansions. Why not simply have it as "HL2"? Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main article doesn't need to be an episode. Just like Noble gas is itself not a noble gas. The episodes are still episodes, just like Star Wars episodes. Gary King (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the connection. Noble gas describes each of the gases, while here, HF2 is a standalone game&article, and the episodes are continuations/expansions. As I've said, the label episodes is misleading, and I would rather prefer something extremely akward like "standalone-games" or "releases" rather than something that is misleading; HL2 the game, is not episode 0 nor covers the other episodes. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Half-Life 2 titles"? Then all we need to do is knock off the "2" when HL1 stuff gets around to being integrated. -- Sabre (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I think there are a few other games that have "Half-Life 2" in their title, aren't there? I think my Star Wars example is similar to this situation; it isn't a reason to go through with this, but it does describe it fairly well in my opinion. These are episodes of Half-Life 2, as officially described by Valve themselves. Gary King (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with Gary. A "Half-Life titles" topic would also need to include Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, Half-Life 2: Deathmatch (not sure this should have been merged myself), probably Half-Life 2: Survivor, and maybe also Codename: Gordon and The Orange Box - rst20xx (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Half-Life 2 Deathmatch was merged because there simply isn't much to say about it - no real development info, no major reception, not even much to say on gameplay. A large bulk of the article was game guide content, and as its just Half-Life 2 in multiplayer, its far easier to cover it within the main Half-Life 2 article. -- Sabre (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it's notable enough for its own article, and capable of GA, but anyway, this is a bit off topic now - rst20xx (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if possible, I am disinclined to promote this topic until the name dispute is resolved, as renaming categories is a right pain. Can I propose we have a quick vote on which name people would prefer? I'll go first - rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support current "Half-Life 2 episodes" name over all other possible names - per the arguments of Gary King above - rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current name. I have to say I agree with Nergaal. If the lead article just focused on the episodes that would be one thing, but from what I can tell it focuses almost entirely on a separate game. I think either "Half-life 2 titles" or "Half-life 2 series" would be a more appropriate name for this topic. I've looked at all the other articles rst20xx mentioned, and I don't think a name change would require the inclusion of any of those articles. The only one that might should be in would be the arcade game version, but from what I can tell it doesn't seem to be in the same continuity as the main Half-life 2 so I would be inclined to say it's not necessary either. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Half-Life 2 titles" sounds good to me as it's not really a wholly separate series. Gary King (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
second to the "titles" proposal Nergaal (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have renamed the topic. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promote under any name the criteria does not say anything about having an good title, opposes for a bad title are non-actionable. Z gin der 2008-10-12T17:31Z (UTC)
A name can clearly lead a topic to fail other criteria, for example if this topic was called "Half-Life titles" it would clearly have notable gaps - rst20xx (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose the topic now~~ under the new name. It clearly does not include all the Half-Life 2 titles, Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Half-Life 2: Survivor are missing, so to promote it under this name would IMO be cherrypicking. To promote it under the "episodes" name would be fine, a la the Star Wars topic or the "Halo trilogy" topic. Jeez Gary, before you decided to change your mind and rename the vote was 2-2, I think renaming was a bit premature - rst20xx (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I renamed it back and am going to be hands-off for a few days from this topic. Gary King (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never played these games before. All of my knowledge comes from reading these articles, so this is a completely honest question. How does Half-Life 2: Lost Coast count as a "title" if it is merely an extra level you can download for Half-Life 2? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have played it, but I don't think it really matters much here. Okay, Lost Coast is only one level, but I don't see how that means it ISN'T a Half-Life 2 title - rst20xx (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All this over a few mere words, seems a bit pointless when there's agreement that the topic itself is valid. Come on guys, lets get this settled, if you don't like the current name, suggest something else. Let's throw another title in: "Half-Life 2 and episodes". -- Sabre (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That name sounds a bit silly, but I suppose at a stretch I would be willing to settle for it - rst20xx (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a great name, but I'd go along with it also. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't see why Half-Life 2 is part of this. The Expansions and modifications section makes my point best I think - "Newell admits that a more correct title for these episodes should have been "Half-Life 3: Episode One" and so forth, having referred to the episodes as Half-Life 3 repeatedly through the interview". With this in mind it just seems like the inclusion of HL2 is to meet the minimum of three articles. For me this fails 1d. Cherrypicking. I'd be happy with a HL2 Expansions if you could include Half-Life 2: Lost Coast GA . Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Valve planned on releasing Episodes one through three as Half-Life 3, but they decided to break the game up into three separate episodes that became a part of the Half-Life 2 series. Gary King (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to clarify on that further, they later wanted to release the three games as a single expansion pack, entitled Half-Life 2: Aftermath but then basically decided to release it as three separate games, but still together making up a single expansion pack for Half-Life 2. Valve made a fairly big deal about releasing the one game as three episodes. Here's some more information. I'm currently working on Half-Life 2: Episode One, which also has some information in the Development section. Gary King (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Start a poll? I think this is what all of this is about. IMO "episodes" is misleading. "series" or "titles" would be fine. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think this FTC should be restarted. Some of the people who were involved at the beginning are not aware that this discussion is still going on. Gary King (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hate to be the one to say this, but I think this nomination should probably just be withdrawn. The conflict over the name of the article highlights bigger issues with this topic concerning scope and cherry picking. All of the articles in this topic (except the audited article) are already included in The Orange Box topic, and that is also possible overly overlapping of topics. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the articles are obviously related in some way; perhaps what way that is is where the problem lies, not the relationship itself. The three episodes are strongly related to each other, and they are branched off from Half-Life 2. Gary King (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best option is probably to restart this FTC and get everyone's opinions in here again, because only the people who are concerned about the name of this topic are currently involved in this discussion. Gary King (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well if you'd like to give it a second try I would suggest just withdrawing this nomination and renominating it from scratch. It's probably not a bad idea anyway since this nomination has been open over a month now. That has to be some kind of record. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! This nomination has went off its tracks a few times already. I'll just archive this and renominate it again. Gary King (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]